Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    According To Section 10 of The Indian Contract Act

    Uploaded by

    Pulkit Jain
    The document discusses Indian contract law as it relates to minors. It outlines that a minor's agreements are void under Indian law. It examines a landmark 1903 case that established this. It also discusses some exceptions and circumstances where a minor's agreements may be enforceable, such as for necessities or if made by a guardian for the minor's benefit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    According To Section 10 of The Indian Contract Act

    Uploaded by

    Pulkit Jain
    6 views4 pages
    The document discusses Indian contract law as it relates to minors. It outlines that a minor's agreements are void under Indian law. It examines a landmark 1903 case that established this. It also discusses some exceptions and circumstances where a minor's agreements may be enforceable, such as for necessities or if made by a guardian for the minor's benefit.

    Original Description:

    description of section 10

    Original Title

    According to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses Indian contract law as it relates to minors. It outlines that a minor's agreements are void under Indian law. It examines a landmark 1903 case that established this. It also discusses some exceptions and circumstances where a minor's agreements may be enforceable, such as for necessities or if made by a guardian for the minor's benefit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    6 views4 pages

    According To Section 10 of The Indian Contract Act

    Uploaded by

    Pulkit Jain
    The document discusses Indian contract law as it relates to minors. It outlines that a minor's agreements are void under Indian law. It examines a landmark 1903 case that established this. It also discusses some exceptions and circumstances where a minor's agreements may be enforceable, such as for necessities or if made by a guardian for the minor's benefit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    According to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 all agreements are

    not contracts. Only those agreements are contracts that are made by parties
    who are competent to enter into a contract. Further, the word ‘competent’
    has been described in Section 11 of Indian Contract Act; it is inclusive of 3
    essentials-

     The person should be of the age of majority; that is to say, 18 years


     He should be of sound mind at the time of making of contract.
     He should not be disqualified from contracting by any law to which
    he is subject.
    It can be said that majority is an essential before entering into a contract

    Minor’s contract
    A minor is one who has not attained the age of 18, and for every contract,
    the majority is a condition precedent. By looking at the Indian law, minor’s
    agreement is a void one, meaning thereby that it has no value in the eye of
    the law, and it is null and void as it cannot be enforced by either party to the
    contract. And even after he attains majority, the same agreement could not
    be ratified by him. Here, the difference is that minor’s contract is void/null,
    but is not illegal as there is no statutory provision upon this.

    Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghosh


    The case goes back to the year 1903 in which, for the first time, the Privy
    Council held that a minor’s contract is void-ab-initio that it is void from the
    beginning.

    Facts of the case – the plaintiff Dharmodas Ghosh, when he was a minor,
    mortgaged his property to the defendant, a moneylender. At that time,
    defendant’s attorney had the knowledge about plaintiff’s age. The plaintiff
    later paid only Rs 8000 but refused to pay rest of the money. The plaintiff’s
    mother was his next friend (legal guardian) at that time, so he commenced
    an action against the defendant saying that at the time of making of a
    contract, he was a minor, so the contract being a void one, he is not bound
    by the same.

    The court held that unless the parties have competence under Section 11 of
    the Act, no agreement is a contract.

    Effects of minor’s agreement


    Through this landmark judgment, the effects can be explained-

     No liability arising out of either tort/contract: A minor is


    incapable of giving consent, and the nature of minor’s agreement is
    a nullity and cannot be enforced
     The rule of estoppel: Estoppel is a legal rule of evidence which
    prevents a party from alleging something that contradicts what he
    previously stated. The court held that the doctrine of estoppel does
    not apply to the case in which the person knows the real facts,
    before hand and here the attorney of the defendant knew that the
    plaintiff was a minor. Hence this rule does not apply.

     Restitution of benefit: According to Section 64 of the Indian


    Contract Act, when a person at whose option a contract is voidable
    rescinds it, the other party need not perform it. This applies to
    contracts that are voidable, but a minor’s contract is void, and
    therefore, he cannot be asked to refund the amount money to the
    moneylender.

    Exception to general rule


    For providing protection to a minor, his agreement is void. But there are
    certain exceptions as well.

     When minor has performed his obligation: In a contract, a


    minor can be a promisee but not a promisor. So if the minor has
    performed his part of the promise, but the other party hasn’t the
    minor being in the position of a promisee he can enforce the
    contract.
     A contract entered into by guardian of minor for his
    benefit: In that case, a minor can sue the other party when it does
    not perform its promise. In the case of Great American Insurance v.
    Madan Lal[1] the guardian on the behalf of her son entered into an
    insurance contract in respect of fire for the minor’s property. When
    the property was damaged and minor asked for the compensation,
    the insurer denied it by saying that a contract with a minor is a void
    one. But later the court held that this contract was enforceable, and
    he is liable to pay compensation.
     Contract of apprenticeship: Under the Indian Apprentices Act,
    1850, a contract of apprentice entered by guardian on his behalf is
    binding on the minor.
    Necessities supplied to a minor
    If a person is incapable of entering into a contract is supplied by another
    person with necessities of life, the person who has supplied is entitled to get
    reimbursement from the property of such incompetent person, including a
    child as well. But if the minor has no property of his own, then he cannot be
    bound to reimburse the other person.

    Can a minor be a partner?

    The way of a contract creates a partnership, and the essential of a contract is


    that the both the parties should be of the age of majority. However, as an
    exception as per Section 30 of the Partnership Act is that with the due
    consent of all the partners, the minor can be admitted to the benefit of
    partnership for the time being. But he will not be liable for any of his acts.

    Liability of a minor under the Negotiable Instrument Act


    As per Section 26 of the Act, a minor can draw, endorse, and negotiate and
    he can bind everybody except himself. Every person who is capable of
    contracting according to the law to which he is subject may bind himself and
    be bound by the making, drawing, accepting, delivery and negotiation of a
    promissory note, cheque or a bill of exchange.

    Can a minor be an agent or principal?


    A minor can never be a principal because Section 183 of the Indian Contract
    Act for anybody to become a principal he should be of the age of majority
    and be of sound mind and since a minor is not competent to contract, he also
    cannot employ an agent. But, a minor can become an agent as per the
    provisions of section 184 but the principal shall be bound by the acts of the
    minor and he would not be personally liable in that case.

    Landmark case laws


     Srikakulam Subramaniam v. SubbaRao[2]– To pay off, the
    promissory note and mortgage debt of his father, minor and his
    mother, the minor sold a piece of land to the holders of the
    promissory note in satisfaction of the debt. He paid off the mortgage
    and got possession of the land. But later the minor claimed that
    because of his minority the contract was void, and he demanded the
    possession of land. But the court held that this contract was for the
    benefit of the minor and was entered into by his guardian; his
    mother and thus was a valid one.
     Suraj Narayan v. SukhuAheer[3]: In the concerned case, a person
    borrowed some money during his minority and after attaining the
    age of majority, he made a fresh promise to pay that sum and
    interest thereon, but this contract was not enforceable due to the
    reason that consideration received during minority is not a good
    consideration.
     Kundan Bibee v. Sree Narayan[4]: S, while he was a minor received
    some goods from K in connection with his business and was
    indebted to him, when he attained majority, he took some more
    money and executed a bond for paying the total amount to K. In an
    action by K to recover the said amount, it was contended by S that
    he was not liable to pay as they purported to be in his minority.
    However, S was made liable to pay the whole amount since there
    was a new consideration attached.
     Kuwarlal v. Surajmal[5]: Regarding necessities provided to minors it
    was held that the house given to a minor on rent for living in it and
    to continue his studies is part of necessities, and therefore he is
    entitled to payment of rent from minor’s property.

    Footnotes:

    [1](1935) 37 BOMLR 461

    [2] (1948) 50 BOMLR 646

    [3] AIR 1928 ALL 440

    [4] (1906) 11 CAL W.N. 135

    [5] AIR 1963 MP 58

    You might also like